APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, Eric Sims, the defendant, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, six counts of attempted first degree murder, and six counts of employment of a firearm during attempted first degree murder. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life in prison plus one hundred and eighty-six years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, the admission of evidence regarding his gang affiliation, and the length of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Mark Anthony Thomas, appeals the revocation of his probation to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Eric Washington, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation for his convictions for aggravated assault, domestic assault, and vandalism under $500 and order that he serve his effective ten-year sentence in confinement. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing hearsay testimony at the revocation hearing and that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation. Upon our review of the record, we hold that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause or reliability and that the trial court erred in revoking Defendant’s probation on a ground for which there was a lack of evidence in the record. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Sean Greenlee, the Defendant, appeals the summary denial of his “Motion to Correct Sentence” filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Because the motion failed to state a colorable claim, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the motion.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Johnnie Ray Ashford, of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony, and attempting to sell a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class D felony, and he received an effective three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of a State witness regarding the witness’s potential bias, that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, and that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Angela Montgomery, appeals as of right from her convictions for six counts of rape of a child. The Defendant argues (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence that the Defendant used corporal punishment to discipline her children; and (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to introduce a witness’s prior inconsistent statements. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In October 2013, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Deewaine Mikel Bumpas, in count one for aggravated robbery occurring on June 19, 2013; in count two for attempted aggravated robbery occurring on June 26, 2013; and in count three for aggravated robbery occurring on July 3, 2013. The trial court, at the State’s request, severed counts one and two, and the parties proceeded to trial on count three. A jury subsequently convicted Bumpas, as charged, of the July 3, 2013 aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years at 85% release eligibility. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-402, 40-35-501(k)(1). On appeal, Bumpas contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude the photographic lineup and accompanying testimony; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude the surveillance video and accompanying testimony; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to questions regarding Sergeant Williams’ personnel record; (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial; (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (6) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (7) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Vernica Shabree Calloway, a.k.a. Vernica S. Ward, a.k.a. Vernica Jackson, appeals the denial of her post-conviction petition, arguing trial counsels’ strategy regarding the use of expert witnesses on behalf of her defense was ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Carlos Richard Morris, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of failing to obey a stop sign. The trial court merged the two possession with intent to sell convictions, and it sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eight years. It ordered that the Defendant’s eight-year sentence from Madison County run concurrently with any remaining sentences from two previous Henderson County possession with intent to sell cocaine convictions. The Defendant filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct his allegedly illegal sentence, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is the second appeal involving the attempted forfeiture of horses that had allegedly been the victims of animal abuse. The State appeals the trial court’s finding that Appellee owners had standing to contest the forfeiture and the grant of summary judgment to Appellee owners on the ground that the State failed to comply with applicable procedural requirements. We conclude that because Appellees are “owners” as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-702(3), they have standing to contest the forfeiture. We also conclude that the undisputed facts establish that the attempted forfeiture did not comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the applicable forfeiture statutes. The trial court’s ruling is, therefore, affirmed.

This is a termination of parental rights case involving the parental rights of the father, Jason C. (“Father”), to his minor child, Savanna C. (“the Child”), who was two years of age at the time of trial. The Child was born in 2014 to Father and Katie N. (“Mother”). On November 10, 2014, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”) granted temporary legal custody of the Child to the maternal grandmother, Kathryn N. (“Maternal Grandmother”). The maternal grandfather, Tommy N. (“Maternal Grandfather”), was later added as a joint petitioner. The juvenile court adjudicated the Child dependent and neglected on August 20, 2015, and ordered that the Child remain in the custody of the Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather (collectively, “Maternal Grandparents”). On September 21, 2015, Maternal Grandparents filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Child in the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“trial court”). Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Child upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that Father had abandoned the Child by willfully failing to visit during the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Father has appealed.1 Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Wilson County jury convicted the Defendant, Anthony M. Crawford, of aggravated assault and child abuse. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive prison terms of six and four years, for a total effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds; (2) the trial court improperly commented on the evidence; (3) the trial court erred when it precluded the Defendant’s expert witness from testifying at the suppression hearing; (4) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress his October 19, 2012 statement; (5) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (6) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to cross-examine witnesses about “highly prejudicial statements” the Defendant made about the victim; (7) the State did not properly make an election of offenses, thus depriving the Defendant of a unanimous verdict; (8) the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial; and (9) the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully concur in results only. My concern in this case is that inadmissible polygraph testing evidence was presented at the suppression hearing.

The Petitioner, Michael Terrell McKissack, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted carjacking. In the petition, the Petitioner argued that his trial counsel was ineffective (1) by failing to call two of his co-defendants to testify on his behalf; (2) by failing to inform him that his third co-defendant would testify against him; and (3) by failing to adduce proof during the guilt phase regarding his lack of education and mental health issues. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Reginald Bernard Coffee, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced to fifteen years. See T.C.A. § 39-13-403 (2014). On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the fingerprint evidence was admitted without a sufficient foundation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Danny O. Owens, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree murder conviction, alleging he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Defendant, Shanthony Tywon Mays, was convicted by an Obion County Jury of one count of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years for aggravated robbery, four years for each count of aggravated assault, and four years for unlawful possession of a weapon, to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentence in an unrelated case. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly overruled Defendant’s objection to the jury venire; (2) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury concerning possession of recently stolen property; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Maka Fuller, Jr., of aggravated robbery. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to eleven years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because he did not use a weapon to accomplish the robbery. Finding that there is sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery, we affirm the trial court.

Petitioner, Timothy Baxter, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial where he was convicted of felony failure to appear. More specifically, he contends that trial counsel failed to subpoena witnesses requested by Petitioner, did not present evidence that the circuit court clerk’s office failed to issue a criminal summons after his failure to appear, and trial counsel allowed himself to be intimidated by the trial court. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Declaratory judgment action in which an insurance company seeks a determination of its coverage obligations arising out of a business insurance policy it issued relative to a class action suit brought against the insured for sending unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in part, holding that the insurance company had no duty to indemnify under the “accidental event” coverage or the “personal injury” coverage, that the company had a duty to defend under the “advertising injury” coverage, and that the company had a duty to defend against all claims. The insured filed a motion to alter or amend, which was denied by the court. On appeal, the insured argues that the court issued an improper advisory opinion, erred in holding the company had no duty to indemnify under the “accidental event” coverage, and abused its discretion by failing to consider new evidence proffered in the insured’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

This is an appeal from an order finding two children of S.B. (mother) and R.H. (father) to be the victims of severe child abuse in the couple’s care and control. On July 24, 2015, the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) received a referral alleging, in part, that the parties’ three children, A.L.H., A.G.B., and A.R.B. (collectively the children), were drug-exposed. On August 27, 2015, the children underwent hair follicle drug testing. A.G.B. and A.R.B. tested positive for methamphetamine. A.L.H. was negative for all substances. On September 23, 2015, DCS filed a petition to declare the children dependent and neglected. Mother and father stipulated that the children were dependent and neglected, but they expressly did not agree with the finding of severe child abuse. The Juvenile Court for Wayne County (the juvenile court) entered an order finding A.G.B. and A.R.B. to be the victims of severe abuse. Mother and father appealed to the Circuit Court for Wayne County (the trial court). On July 14, 2016, the trial court entered an order finding A.G.B. and A.R.B. to be the victims of severe child abuse in the care and control of mother and father. Mother and father appeal. We affirm.  

Plaintiff alleged that the City of Mt. Juliet breached a settlement agreement with her by violating a non-disparagement agreement. Because Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of damages, summary judgment was appropriate. We affirm.   

Petitioner, Kenneth Tucker, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Nero Oswald Jones, appeals as of right from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred because his motion stated a colorable claim for relief. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Elbert Bryant Gleaves, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. The petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to trial forcing him to accept the State’s plea offer. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.